[please could we format mailing list replies so it's easier to respond]
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTSI) wrote:
> Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the Android sensor API provides information such as the sensor's
>> type, the time-stamp, accuracy and the sensor's data.
>>
>> For Android 2.3 this API covers the following sensors:
>>
>> ACCELEROMETER
>> GRAVITY
>> GYROSCOPE
>> LIGHT
>> ACCELERATION
>> MAGNETIC_FIELD
>> ORIENTATION
>> PRESSURE
>> PROXIMITY
>> ROTATION_VECTOR
>> TEMPERATURE
>>
>> “Device Orientation” related sensors are currently covered by the draft
>> DeviceOrientation event specification by the Geolocation WG. I interpret
>> that Richards proposal typically will address the other sensors.
Right. All of the above or a subset? We lock down on those sensors early
on in the new charter or explicitly in the charter itself?
>>
>> I would say that for the charter Richard’s proposal to state that we are
>> providing an events model for well-known sensors, e.g. those above not
>> covered by DeviceOrientation event, is ok. Then, if ok from a “charter
>> technical point of view”, we can state that any additional
>> extensibility/discoverability/low-level API proposals could be
>> considered for publication under the charter term.
Exactly :)
>>
>
> In order to model the API upon Android or other platforms, we need
> the active involvement of the platform owners in the group,
Since we're talking about a company that also implements browsers, I
would also strongly encourage that.
> so that they bring these designs to W3C as RF starting point
> submissions (like we did with BONDI), and to gain assurance that we
> won’t run into major exclusion issues when we get to that point.
>
I'd expect that we would not be copying a Java API over the web platform
verbatim unless, once we start to work on that task, it became clear
that it made sense to do so.
Whether they commit a Java spec RF does not preclude our ability to work
on suitable web standards. The W3C process is designed to take account
of those considerations as a specification develops without requiring
any particular action up front [1]. If a key target stakeholder were to
initiate that process, then I'd also venture to say that we were doing
something very wrong in the first place.
- Rich
[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Disclosure